Telework and Government

When we started our research on telework in the 1970s we knew that one of
the societal motivations for increased teleworking
would be its effect on reducing traffic congestion and vehicular air
pollution. The problem with that motivation was that no one was in
charge of the solution, no one was in control, and no one could see
a direct
impact on the individual or corporate paycheck. So, although
we have always maintained that telework does best when it is undertaken
purely as a sound business decision, it sometimes helps to have a little
push
from government. Government's effect may be most quickly noticed when
it does have a visible economic impact. Here are some examples.

Regulation XV

One of the first regulations to specifically mention telecommuting was
promulgated in 1989 by California's South Coast Air Quality Management
District as a means to
reduce automobile-generated air pollution. The regulation required employers
to limit the use of vehicles by their employees such that the number of
vehicles allowed to travel to the employers' facilities was a fraction
of the number of employees working at the facilities. The exact fraction
depended on the location of the facility, with lower values required for
facilities in high pollution impact areas. Telecommuting was one of a number
of options allowed for increasing the number of employees per vehicle.
Failure to develop and implement a plan for reducing the number of employee
commuting vehicles was punishable by a fine of up to $25,000
per day. Although the regulation was limited to employers with at least
100 employees at a location, it did have a noticeable effect on increasing
awareness and use of telecommuting. The regulation
was repealed in 1995 in response to pressure from employers in the Southern
California
region—and over the objections of the environmental community.

Flexible Working Regulations

The UK's Flexible
Working Regulations went into effect on April 6,
2003. They allow employees to request flexible working arrangements such
as teleworking
and flexible hours and require employers either to allow such arrangements
or explain in writing why they are denied. Employees are given the right
to appeal
denials
and are allowed to be accompanied by a companion to hear any explanation
of a denial. One of the impacts of these regulations is likely to be an
increase in home-based teleworking in the UK. Here the economic impact
appears at first glance to benefit the affected workers by reducing
commuting, dependent care and related costs. But our experience is that
well-designed teleworking programs also have substantial economic benefits
for the employers, once they are persuaded to adopt them. See our
cost-benefit
analyses for more on that score.

Sealing off downtown: Congestion charging

The central city areas of most large metropolises have long been scenes
of major traffic congestion. Although everyone complained about it, like
the weather, not much was done about it until Singapore decided to limit
access to its congested downtown area beginning in 1975. Car traffic in
Singapore is prohibited in the restricted area for cars that
do not have
the required—and very expensive—permit. Electronic monitoring
of the permits began in 1998. Melbourne, Australia and Trondheim, Norway
adopted similar plans in the 1990s.

On February 17, 2003, the City
of London also followed Singapore's example by restricting access
to those willing to pay £5 per day just to enter the area. As was
the case with Singapore,
the level of traffic congestion in the restricted areas diminished markedly
in just a few weeks. Movrs are afoot to export this phenomenon to Manhattan.

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide "reasonable
accommodation" to disabled employees. Often this is interpreted as providing
wheelchair access, wider parking spaces and restroom facilities, grab bars
for easier movement in tight quarters, and the like. But teleworking, particularly
its telecommuting variant, is increasingly being used as a form of ADA
accommodation. From the employer's point of view, once the "how-do-I-know-they're-working-when-I-can't-see-them?"
syndrome is overcome, this is a much less costly means of accommodation
than many other alternatives. When the positive side effects are included,
such as improved productivity of disabled employees and a heightened public
image, then teleworking becomes even more atttractive to employers.

Curiously, some organizations that claim to represent the disabled have
grave doubts about teleworking. Their fear is that teleworking puts employees
"out of the mainstream", the out-of-sight-out-of-mind problem. Yet our
conversations with disabled telecommuters, although not a scientific sample,
show uniformly positive attitudes toward telecommuting. Problems can arise
in
some cases when telecommuting, or broader teleworking arrangements, simply
are not suitable on a full-time basis. Still, telework as a response to
ADA requirements is a useful and suitable option.

What next?

Clearly, one of the side effects of these and other government regulations
has to be increased interest in telecommuting for workers in generaal and
particularly for the workers employed in these congested areas, Since most
such areas include a high
proportion of information workers—most of whom are potential telecommuters—these
side effects can also become significant to many corporate and personal wallets.

Telepicker
is a trademark of JALA International. All other products mentioned are registered
trademarks or trademarks of their respective companies.
Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to info at jala.com.
Last modified:
Tuesday January 3, 2012.